User talk:Trlovejoy

Welcome!

Hello, Trlovejoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contrbutions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Riffsyphon1024 04:49, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ambassador Avant

The deleted material that you keep restoring is quoting a blog that misquotes the IG report. The blog in question is intentionally misrepresenting the IG report and misplaces quotes to make his statements appear to be part of the IG report. The Washington Post owns FP Magazine and was the the first to quote the blog that appeared on the FP website as a real news source without giving notice of the ownership connection. It is a political blog - not a news source. Ambassador Avant was part of the regularly scheduled IG process and she resigned post following the death of her mother in-law and her father in-law's severe stroke to be home with her family. Please discontinue these attacks on Ambassador Avant's tenure, which was extremely successful. The daily management of an Embassy is the responsibility of the Deputy Chief of Mission and the management team - the criticism in the IG report was aimed at that team. Ambassador Avant's travel was in all cases pre-approved by the state department, as is required. Those dates included weekends and holidays. Many ambassadors choose to work from the official residence instead of the embassy - that is why the residence is fully equipped with not one but two offices. This has all been covered extensively in the press. Ambassador Avant turned over several employees and left the embassy better than she found it and returns to the Bahamas often and at her own expense to support initiatives she began during her term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.199.174 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Peavey Delta Blues 210 Article

The Peavey Delta Blues 210 article might be a little skimpy, but I made an effort to keep it neutral. If you'r referring to the comparison to the Fender Hot Rod Deluxe, you have to watch the YouTube video to the end. That's where the guitarist (not me) makes the comparison. If it's a stub, simply mark it as one.Rbcwa (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Understood, however as it does not appear encyclopedic and more directly promotional it was marked WP:CSD G11. The article needs further information and context outside of specification and manufacturer to provide value and go beyond promotion.TRL (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm being dense. What's not neutral about the article, according to WP:CSD G11? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbcwa (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the promotional aspect and not the educational encyclopedic aspect. I tagged it as I was curating new pages. I see it has been moved to a sandbox for improvement. Take that opportunity to advance the article with more information beyond product specs.TRL (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

So are you declaring the whole thing promotional simply because it's a commercial product made by a commercial company? If that's the case, you might want to consider the array Fender amplifier articles. I did make an effort to keep it factual and purge any of the non-factual marketing information. I realize that Peavey isn't as well known as Fender, but they have been around a while, and have also had their impact on music as well. It's worth pointing out that I don't work for Peavey, I just use their gear. Tokyogirl79 questions the notability but didn't provide a reference for that. Could you provide some references on notability and expand on the parts of WP:CSD G11 that are a problem in the article? Should I just merge all the amps in the Classic Series into a single article to broaden the reference base?Rbcwa (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. The problem is that it is specific to the products with little secondary source citation and notability established... How is this product important beyond the product tech specs... I can find the tech specs on the product sales page, but who uses the product? Why is it significant? Are there reviews saying it's the worst product in history, or the best thing since sliced bread? Those are all things that would contribute to improvement and justification for a standalone article on the product. If you'd prefer to consolidated it with the other amps in the classic series that may be appropriate until the amp has more attributes that would necessitate it's break out. Hope this has helped some. Curative intent is not to be difficult, rather ensure tags are placed to prevent articles from not conforming.TRL (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Stu Thomas

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Stu Thomas because I think the article makes a claim of notability, which means A7 criteria don't apply. That doesn't mean he is notabile of course, but you will have to take it to AFD if you think it should be deleted. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and note. Just working on curation.TRL (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: National Day Parade, 2013

Hi, just wanted to inform that the page was deleted before I knew it, please inform next course of action. Thanks. Gs97 (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Gs97, there are many resources for creating articles and guides. From creating Your first article to Starting an article, or using the the Article wizard these guides will be helpful for best practices. The key with your National Day Parade article is to make sure that it does not appear to be promotional. That may be difficult for an event that is upcoming... You would want to ensure you have a good set of citations and references that go beyond primary sources. You also want to make sure that there is some established notability. Thanks for the contribution, and I apologize that you were not online and aware of the CSD for the article. Had you been, you may have been able to get the admin to move the page to your sandbox for improvement prior to appearance in the mainspace.TRL (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will take note on that and would just redo based on that and leave others to do better editing. Gs97 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Attribution (marketing)

Hello Trlovejoy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Attribution (marketing), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is not unambiguously promotional enough for G11. Consider AfD if you like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and note. I may consider AfD, the whole Vendors section concerned me, another problem with this article is the specific detailed nature and orphan status...TRL (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

About 2005 Canada rugby union tour of France and Romania

Hi Trlovejoy. I've declined the speedy for that article, but would personally be fine with a redirect to 2005 end-of-year rugby union tests. Canada are RU minnows, but it was a genuine series between international teams. I'm not sure what the notability criteria for RU series are, being more of a Rugby league fan - <gloats> eight in a row! can anything stop our mighty Maroons from making it a ten years in a row of State of Origin glory, etc, etc </gloats> - I'll ask at WikiProject Rugby union. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and note, this page could use a Rugby league SME. TRL (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

While both critters are of the Genus "Rugby", R. leagus and R. unionis are two different beasties. That said, they are both closely related to the Genus Gridiron and its two main species, G. americanus and G. canadiensus. --Shirt58 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Page curation

Hallo, in this edit you

1. Added {{stub}} to an article which already had a subject-specific stub tag: this just wastes the time of other editors
2. Added maintenance tags above the disambiguation hatnote, which is supposed always to be at the top to help accessibility for screen-reader users.

I've cleaned up the article, but please take more care. Thanks. PamD 14:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And another unnecessary stub tag in this edit. PamD 14:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, looks like my clicks got zealous in the tagging during curation. My apology for the re-work removals. Thanks for the review and corrections.TRL (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

I have declined your speedy deletion request at Işın Show. Please note that WP:CSD#A7 only applies to people, individual animals, and organizations. Works of entertainment, such as tv shows, books, movies, etc. can not fall under this category. In fact, outside of things like WP:CSD#G11 and wP:CSD#G12, such topics usually need to be taken through wP:Prod or WP:AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and note.TRL (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

YW. I've also just declined Tiantaishan Wulong Temple for the same reason--a location/building/temple also doesn't fall under any of the provisions of A7. Don't feel bad--I also found CSD confusing when I started, as it turns out that there are a large number of article types/subjects that are ineligible. However, eventually I learned that this is actually the point--CSD is suppposed to be a narrow exception; by default, and article should go to Prod or AfD, and CSD only exists for certain problems that occur again and again for which we can trust admins to make a quick decision and avoid the 7 days required for Prod/AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I endorse Qwyrxian's advice not to be discouraged - New Page Patrol is one of the most important, though undervalued, activities in keeping Wikipedia workable, but it's important to get it right. It's worth re-reading the definitions in WP:CSD from time to time, and there is good advice for speedy taggers from an experience admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Horrid Henry Episodes (season 3)

I should have been more specific with my edits. In the List of Horrid Henry Episodes (season 2), a episode list for season 3 can be found in there. I feel that season 3 episodes should have its own page rather than be squished together with the season 2 episodes. But like I said before I should have been more specific. Spectertv (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, the key is sources and ensuring the document cross links to other relevant articles.TRL (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

My Secret Luxury Speedy Deletion

Hi, could I ask what the problem was with the My Secret Luxury article (now here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Dompreston/My_Secret_Luxury)? The sources seem to be sufficient to meet the notability requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH, given coverage from major sources such as Techcrunch and the NY Observer. Are these sources somehow not sufficient? Or was there some other problem? Dompreston (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dompreston, the tag was placed as there was unambiguous advert in my reading... I am glad it has been restored to your sandbox so that you can nurture and bring the article up to mainspace ready. The article needs more context and interlinking with other articles. More references and more information so that it is not purely a product listing for a commercial org.TRL (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm only slightly confused, as it doesn't seem to conflict with WP:CSD#G11, which specifically states that articles that describe companies or products from a neutral point of view don't meet the criterion. So unless the language was not sufficiently neutral, the article shouldn't have deserved speedy deletion. More content on the page and linking to other articles might make it a better article, to be sure, but it seems to me to already meet all the relevant criteria for being a suitable article - at worst it's an article that needs improvement, not one that shouldn't be up at all. Perhaps I'm missing something though, so any further specific advice on why the page is problematic and how to improve it would be welcome. Dompreston (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dompreston, The page met the criteria when I was reading the page, I tagged and an admin took action. My apology if you disagree. There are many resources for creating articles and guides. From creating Your first article to Starting an article, or using the the Article wizard these guides will be helpful for best practices. If you are really working to improve the page and context, I would suggest you consider adding:

{{under construction|comment=If this article looks to be promotional, kindly edit some of the content to avoid it. Do contact me at [[User talk:USERNAME|my user talk]] for any enquiries.}}

Again, best of luck I hope the resources help. TRL (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi Trlovejoy, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 11:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Stub Blank

i removed that page because it already exists,and it was a stub,i just forgot to explain myself--Bsamiwalaa (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Bsamiwalaa, got it... marked page CSD.TRL (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

BBC revision

You're revision of my edit, in which I noted the perception of left wing political bias, is incorrect. In the UK numerous news sources have carried such claims and if you view: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=iain+duncan+smith+bbc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&redir_esc=&ei=kEXsUfjyFquf7AbVg4EY#q=iain+duncan+smith+bbc&client=safari&rls=en&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=kEXsUfz0HMKjO7TwgbAB&ved=0CDUQqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49478099%2Cd.ZWU%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.c75bKy5EQ0A.O&fp=ee4753a4d190925c&biw=1279&bih=680. You can clearly see a recent example of a Government minster making such claims. Please refrain from undoing my contrbution, when it is clearly justified and you are simply ill-informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

your link is search results, not a proper citation and link to the quote of claims.--TRL (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293639/Iain-Duncan-Smiths-fury-BBC-adopting-language-Labour-calling-benefit-cut-bedroom-tax.html. UK Government minster making such comment in the UK's largest newspaper. I suggest you do research into domestic positions prior to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Article does not support text added. Please move further discussion to Talk:BBC Severe Left Wing Bias for other editors to take part in. TRL (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Article clearly does and the additional page within the framework supports comment also. Perhaps next time, rather than simply deluding yourself, you should do some reading first. Obviously you have a clear knowledge of the BBC, so much so that even the page you reference supports my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wolbong market

Hi Trlovejoy,

You recently tagged an article of mine (Wolbong market) with a speedy deletion tag stating that the article fell under Wikipedia:CSD#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I appreciate you letting me know on my talk page, however the article was deleted within 4 hours of your post, before I was able to even receive your message.

G11 states:

"Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

The article I created was only a 2-sentence-long stub article, properly sourced, stating what the market was, and where it was located. The only problem with neutrality that I could see was that I stated that the market sold "inexpensive" items which was an oversight on my part. I shouldn't have said that, but if that was what you based the deletion tagging on, it seems like simply editing the wording of the article would have fixed the problem. The article certainly wasn't "exclusively" promotional and would not have needed to be "fundamentally rewritten" in order to be neutral.

I've asked the administrator who deleted the article to allow me to work to improve the article. I would hope that in the future you are more careful about tagging articles in this way, and instead try to either improve them yourself, or ask the author to do so while allowing them a reasonable time limit to respond before tagging for deletion.

Thanks for your time, Rystheguy (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for taking the time to right such a long response. As you mention, the stub article was only 2 sentences, you have spent more time here on my talk page than you did yon the article. My apology if you feel the article was removed too quickly and/or in error. Please feel free to use one of the many resources for creating articles and guides. From creating Your first article to Starting an article, or using the the Article wizard these guides will be helpful for best practices. If you are really working to improve the page and context, I would suggest you consider adding:

{{under construction|comment=If this article looks to be promotional, kindly edit some of the content to avoid it. Do contact me at [[User talk:USERNAME|my user talk]] for any enquiries.}}

Again, best of luck I hope the resources help. TRL (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trlovejoy,

Thanks for your response. I'm not upset about the speed of deletion since that is what the speedy deletion tag is for. I'm unhappy with the careless method you chose to address what you determined to be a problem.

I'd like to address a few of your comments. First off, you said:

"As you mention, the stub article was only 2 sentences, you have spent more time here on my talk page than you did yon the article."

This is meaningless since the reason you tagged the article for deletion was because you believed it was commercial, not because of the length of the article. The reason the article was so short is because there is exactly zero English information on the subject. I'm using my limited Korean-reading abilities to make information that is currently available only in Korean, available to a wider audience. If a properly-sourced stub article exists, it allows people with better understanding of the Korean language to easily expand upon what I've created using the source information.

Secondly, your comment stating:

"Please feel free to use one of the many resources for creating articles and guides."

is unhelpful to someone who has created 70 articles so far without any problems and nothing but constructive criticism from reviewers and admins. This cookie-cutter response that you've copied & pasted to everyone above with similar complaints to mine seems lazy. If your goal is to improve Wikipedia, please take time to at least create a thoughtful response to criticisms and try to provide feedback that is helpful rather than dismissive. It's very possible that not all of your edits are mistake-free and that you too have room to improve.

I would recommend that in future edits you follow the Wikipedia community recommendation to be bold and make the necessary changes yourself instead of taking the easy road and just nominating a perfectly fine article for deletion. Additionally, the article "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules" would be a helpful read. This essay: "Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means" explains the "Ignore all rules" article and also has a helpful flow-chart at the bottom that discusses how the policy should be used. If your edits are not improving Wikipedia, then they are at best making no useful difference at all, and worst case, making the encyclopedia less useful. In the case of my article, you nominating it for deletion did nothing to improve the reliability of the encyclopedia and should therefore not have happened. Also, this: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is a useful read for how to use common sense while editing.

Finally, I'd recommend that in the future, you consider using this template:

{{Advert|article}}

as opposed to speedy deletion because it at least allows the original author to address the problem instead of erasing the work they've put into the article so far. That is unless of course the article is written in an "exclusively promotional" manner as outlined in CSD#G11. This is especially true when dealing with articles created by new editors. Since the comment you posted above is aimed at them, it's only appropriate that you take my advice and not bite the newcomers.

Thanks again for your time, Rystheguy (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Raspe page

Hi Trlovejoy, I added a few sections to the Jeff Raspe page, modeling the page after Kid Leo's page in response to your flag. Let me know if they are ok.Smm201`0 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Smm201`0, once you have made the edits in accordance with a maintenance tag, you can remove the tag (as long as they are complete). Sections look good. --TRL (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Neospeech page

Hi Trlovejoy, I appreciate your comments. So I added more citations and external links. I will add more technical aspects of the product later soon. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thank you. Tvo05 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations look good, just make sure not to use bare URLs so you prevent Link Rot --TRL (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Maum Meditation

You reverted my edit including criticism of the Maum Meditation group, which you claimed was not properly sourced. However, it was very much sourced externally to a group of former members discussing their belief that the group is a cult whose primary goal is the advancement of the founder's interests. That is the precise text I included in the article. I have had this edit reverted by people claiming it is "non-neutral" when it is a very true, independently-verifiable, sourced allegation that I had written in a neutral way. Because of the repeated, malicious removal of the criticism section, my next step is to seek the protection of the page to prevent the "criticism" section from being reverted by members of the group or others who wish to sanitize valid, verifiable criticism of the group. I look forward to your response. 66.91.204.11 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello 66.91.204.11, your citation does not link to a valid yahoo group, nor is it specifically reliable in accordance with WP:RS You need to find a reliable source and add the information that way, or take it to the talk page first. The content you are adding is potentially defamation if not verifiably sourced and accurate. TRL (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. I added three separate sources that all support the information added to the page, and removed the invalid Yahoo Groups link. You're welcome. 66.91.204.11 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Worthington, WV's page

Howdy - I removed what I had just added myself, several seconds previously. 76.181.227.185 (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, saw the page blanking. --TRL (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits to List of albums awarded Pitchfork Best New Album

Those were indeed constructive edits and not vandalism. The source is right here: http://pitchfork.com/reviews/best/albums/ --63.64.64.178 (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You must ensure you include the citation to this reference when you add the content. Sorry, based on language and no citation. Also please ensure you add the citation properly to avoid link rot --TRL (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mads Gilbert

I need a source for changing the word "communist" into "socialist", when the article for the party (that said word describes)itself writes that the party is socialist? There wasn't a source their in the first place, when it stated "communist".

This is getting ridiculous. And very annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.49.136 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

96.28.210.53 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)vega page96.28.210.53 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

96.28.210.53 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)I added a bit about the one millionth vega and it got deleted almost immediately. I think it was interesting information to have on the page because of the rarity of actually knowing the history. where's the one million of any car? who knows? If you don't like it maybe I should start my own page just for that car and included in it I could post this incident? then if you tried to edit mine I could block you too....and I could post what a jerk you are, I wish I still had pics of it but I don't ....just good memories of good times, loud heavy metal, pretty girls and sunshine buzzing down the highway in my little 4popper mini-camaro, lol...I loved that little car...it was headed to the junkyard when my brother-in-laws little sister owned it and blew the engine. I got it for 100 bux and replaced the bad engine and drove the hell out of it for 3 more years, that passenger seat had more split tail in it than I could count...lol...good times good times. then I was going to v8 hotrod it and had the engine and rear end and was saving for the other parts when I wrecked it and smashed the quarter panel in....so I junked it in about 1986 0r 87...sigh....96.28.210.53 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You should have one of these, given your poor conduct

Your recent editing history everywhere shows that you are currently engaged in multiple editing war's. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 July 2013‎

Wilson bikram rai

Hello there!

I edited some sentences in the article "wilson bikram rai". You then asked me of the sources. What if i am the source? The guy and me studied in the same class for four years. He left school when he was in class 4.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.14.233.14 (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 

Please see Identifying reliable sources for more info on proper sourcing, and ensure that you list the citation with the edit.--TRL (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Lichter

The meaning somebody who castrates animals is correct. The book of Hans Bahlow is given as source. Why dont´t you belive in the source? Lichter has nothing to do with any lights; thats only an imagination of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. I follow Sheynhertz and eliminate his shit. --Inrath (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there is a reliable source currently listed and the correct meaning is light. --TRL (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ancestry is no reputable reference, it's like WP. Everybody can edit. May bee, that some jewish People are called Lichter. But the Jews became surnames late. 1787 in den Habsburgischen Erbländern; Preußen in 1790; Stadt Breslau in 1791, Regierungsbezirk Breslau in 1794; area Liegnitz bzw. Glogau in 1812; Altmark, Neumark, Pommern, Westpreußen, Ostpreußen in 1833 Posenin 1845 Kulmerland 1846-1848. Whole Germany in 1813; Bayern in 1828; Hannover und Württemberg in 1834. Under Napoléons (Rhineland) in 1808. The german surname Lichter is much older [1] and means somebody who castrates animals --Inrath (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Either way, there has yet to be a source provided for your edit to associate the name with castration.--TRL (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Ancestry.com page cites the Dictionary of American Family Names. I don't see how the content is user generated. ... discospinster _talk 04:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Lichter as a german family name can stem from both "things that have to do with light", candlemaker for example or living at a forest clearing (Lichtung), as well as "someone who castrates"; Leichter, Leichtner, Lichter usw. from middle german "lihten" »kastrieren«. A quick search found this: http://www.der-familienstammbaum.de/ahnenforschung/alte-berufe-l.php In any case Inrath gives a valid source, it's not his job to make it possible for you to check it. --92.202.48.16 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Hans Bahlow [2] ist one of the most famous name researcher. --Inrath (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

On to the next

Whats the point of a random person pic in the article psychiatrist? Is this how they typically look? Is this man particularly famous? Then it should be explained. This guy doesnt even have an article --92.202.48.16 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, however your edit summary indicated it was inappropriate rather than unrelated. My mistake as I was reading the text version of your edits. I've returned to the article to your edited version.--TRL (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

My bad. To my european mind 'inappropriate' just means 'badly placed, not suitable' most of the time :P --92.202.48.16 (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

About156 (number)

I want to have more detailed reasoning for undoing my changes.
I have references, and what I've written IS some information related to both 156 and music. There seems to be nothing wrong with my contributions.--133.11.50.101 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the references provided did not sufficiently validate the information you posted, additionally as it appeared in your edit it looked as if there was some misplaced content. --TRL (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Hello, trlovejoy, how are you, i am from Pakistan from where you are? and thanks for the compliment..<3 Jasmine Aladin (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Cedric Vásquez

Hi Trlovejoy, if I am not mistaken you reviewed one of the articles I have created, Cedric Vásquez. Now, I get what the "Bare URLs" notification means, and I added some link description. But the two other issues you have included in the "Multiple issues" template are unclear to me. The first one is: "insufficient inline citations". Why? Almost every sentence of the article has a ref. I could have cited my book on the Peru national team as a source, but I decided not to cite it, because it could have been classified as WP:Self-promotion, so I used other links which partially cover his National team career (NFT writes 4 caps but his caps are actually 5). The second issue is: "insufficient citations for verification". The sources cover the information included in the article. What I don't get is: what's missing? What else is needed? Thank you for your attention, I will appreciate your answer. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You may want to consider adding several sources for the information on the article. In addition you may want to consider adding additional content based on the biographical information you can find n sources. --TRL (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Positive train control

How is this not a reliable source? .— Preceding unsigned comment added by TittiesAndBeer (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 July 2013

Read the text on the page, there is nothing mentioning civil disorder.--TRL (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, please take this conversation to the article's talk page --TRL (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so text mentions Civil Disorder, but does not substantiate the claims... discuss on talk page. --TRL (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Stupid bitch

I did include a "reliable source". Maybe you should go read sources before removing stuff you fucking cunt